The working assumption for both the federal party and most of the provincial parties close to forming government has been that the only way to win over voters is to appear steady, staid and safe rather than pushing strongly for many policy priorities. And that theory seemed especially likely to work for Darrell Dexter given Nova Scotia’s precedent of offering every previous government at least a second term. But now that Dexter alone has been toppled – in contrast to far more controversial provincial counterparts elsewhere over the past couple of years – it’s worth asking whether more activist government might prove valuable on two fronts.

First, for electoral purposes there has to be some value to keeping a party base engaged and a set of values in the public eye. And while “base vs swing” is one of the perpetual debates for political strategists of all stripes, it’s hard to see the Nova Scotia experience as evidence that balancing budgets immediately and promising social progress later is a winning combination. And second, there’s the question of what a government will leave behind after its stay in office is done.

Dexter’s stand, inspired by NDP icon Tommy Douglas in Saskatchewan, was that the budget had to be balanced before investments in social programs can be sustainable in the long run.

The first Western NDP premiers also had to face conflict with their left wings who wanted to invest in social programs faster. From that example, he expected his own progressives to push too hard, too fast. His first bad move was to cut them off hard.

All Darrell Dexter needed to do was to discover the Manitoba/ Saskatchewan secret and B.C. and Ontario’s Achilles heel. But here’s the rub. No one knows what works and what doesn’t. Each leader (even Bob Rae, back then) was fully committed to the party’s ideals of social justice and equality, although implementation depended on circumstances. Saskatchewan’s political culture has as many differences from Manitoba as it has commonalities. Nova Scotia, like every province, has its own distinct political traditions. And it’s not clear that the Saskatchewan NDP’s secret even works for Saskatchewan any more…

Commenting during the campaign, Cape Breton University political science professor David Johnson judged that “Dexter has done as well as anyone could possibly do, given the situation he had to deal with.” That’s pretty high praise. But somehow it wasn’t good enough for most Nova Scotians. There, like most everywhere else, the NDP seems unable to escape its reputation for being dicey economic managers, and even terrible recessions are no excuse. Time and again, Bob Rae’s wildly-exaggerated record of economic incompetence in Ontario trumps the party’s solid record in Saskatchewan and Manitoba. Thomas Mulcair has his work cut out for him.

Like the Conservative party, the NDP is blessed of a certain ideological debate about its reason for being. But unlike the Conservative party—perhaps especially after seven years of the Harper government—the idea of an NDP government can still seem sort of unusual. The party has only technically existed since 1961 and, outside of Saskatchewan and Manitoba, it has only ever won three elections in British Columbia, one in Ontario, one in Nova Scotia and three in the Yukon. (Total number of provincial seats won by the NDP in the history of New Brunswick: Five.) Federally, this is, of course, the first time the NDP has been the official opposition. Previous to 2011, the NDP’s high-point was 1988, when it won 43 seats with 20.4% of the popular vote. Between 1993 and 2008, it held fewer seats than the Bloc Quebecois.

And yet, it is also true that the NDP has never been closer to putting one of its own in the Prime Minister’s Office.

]]>http://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/what-does-nova-scotia-mean-for-the-ndp/feed/11Linda McQuaig and an MP’s right to independencehttp://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/linda-mcquaig-and-an-mps-right-to-independence/
http://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/linda-mcquaig-and-an-mps-right-to-independence/#commentsTue, 24 Sep 2013 17:28:51 +0000http://www2.macleans.ca/?p=426041Are we really all ready to accept differences of opinion?

]]>Greg Fingas chastises those who would fuss over the differences between the views of Thomas Mulcair and Linda McQuaig on tax policy.

Simply put, there’s absolutely no contradiction between:– a party leader promising that a given policy that will form part of the party’s platform; and– a candidate holding the personal opinion that a particular different policy would produce superior outcomes, while nonetheless supporting the party in general.

I was away last week, but I am heartened to return and see that, in the wake of Justin Trudeau’s admission that he had “a puff” from a marijuana cigarette some three years ago, political leaders in this country have arrived at a new consensus about the standard by which their collective and individual behaviour should be measured.

The strongest initial reaction came from Justice Minister Peter MacKay. “By smoking marijuana as a Member of Parliament, Justin Trudeau demonstrates a profound lack of judgment,” he said in a statement. “By flouting the laws of Canada while holding elected office, he shows he is a poor example for all Canadians, particularly young ones. Justin Trudeau is simply not the kind of leader our country needs.”

In an interview, NDP justice critic Françoise Boivin suggested elected officials should uphold the law rather than admit to flouting it. “I’m sure there will be kids saying, ‘Hey if he does it, we can do it.'”

This promises the beginning of a wonderful new era in our politics in which all words and actions will be judged by the example they set for our children. This new era perhaps arrives too late to be applied to, say, the discussion around fighter jet procurement, but it will now no doubt be the ideal that guides all of the discussions about the economy, the environment, health care, public services and taxation that are now necessary if we should hope to leave our children a country that is worthy of our concern for them.

What else to make of this? The Star argues that Mr. Trudeau shouldn’t have broken the law while sitting as an MP. On that note, Greg Fingas points to Stephen Harper’s unlicensed ATV riding, while David Climenhaga points to Mr. Harper’s eagerness to pardon farmers who had violated wheat board law. (Of course, Mr. Trudeau’s puff was not quite an attempt at a political statement—if he’d shown up on the Hill on 4/20 and partaken of the festivities, he might’ve been able to claim the symbolism of civil disobedience. Instead, he says his mind began to change sometime around last November and the NORML Women’s Association of Canada would like you to know that he credits them for that.)

]]>http://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/trudeau-and-pot-wont-somebody-please-think-of-the-children/feed/123Have Conservatives won the tax debate?http://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/have-conservatives-won-the-tax-debate/
http://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/have-conservatives-won-the-tax-debate/#commentsMon, 12 Aug 2013 15:20:10 +0000http://www2.macleans.ca/?p=412582Thomas Mulcair is criticized from the left

I have a different interpretation of recent tax trends. Consider the following:

-In the early 1980s, Canada’s top federal income tax rate was 43%. Today, it is 29%.-In 2000, the federal government’s general corporate income tax rate was 29%. By 2012, it was 15%.-In 2006, the marginal effective tax rate on new business investment across Canada was 33%. As of 2014, it will be 17% (the lowest of all G-7 countries).-In 1999, total taxes as a percentage of Canada’s GDP (including all federal and provincial taxes) was 36%. By 2010, it was 31%.

… Mr. Mulcair and his officials might wish to consider articulating a more accurate depiction of tax trends in Canada. Doing so might allow voters to have a more informed debate about public policy.

In fairness to Mr. Mulcair, he has expressed opposition to the Harper government’s reductions in the corporate tax rate. But on the larger point, Greg Fingas wonders if Mr. Mulcair’s commitment to efficiency in government operations could also be applied to taxation. Greg also chides Mr. Mulcair’s rhetoric.

And the issue goes beyond the consistency of Mulcair’s own message. It seems fairly clear now that the NDP’s contrast against the Libs for 2015 will include a heavy dose of rightful concern over Justin Trudeau’s policy depth (or lack thereof). But the more Mulcair himself relies on sweeping oversimplifications which don’t stand up to scrutiny, the harder he’ll make it to criticize Trudeau for doing the same.

In sum, Tom Mulcair is smarter than he’s apparently willing to sound when it comes to tax policy. And the more he pretends otherwise, the more he’ll contribute to irresponsible government – no matter who’s Prime Minister after the 2015 election.

This particular point, of course, is less about the wisdom of a given policy and more about how Mr. Mulcair should be doing politics if the NDP wants to win and then to govern.

Back during the NDP leadership campaign, Brian Topp made four tax proposals: a higher marginal rate for those earning more than $250,000; taxing capital gains as regular income (with two caveats); taxing income from stock options; and a gradual increase to the corporate tax rate to 22.12%.

My basic point is if you accept the decisions the Conservatives made about the tax system then you have essentially accepted their agenda. They have broken the government’s revenues and if you don’t restore them then everything else we talk about is just talk. We don’t have the resources to do them. That’s a lesson you learn the hard way when you’ve been in government. Making lists of things to spend money on is the easiest thing you can do in government. Finding the resources for it, that’s the tough part. And setting priorities, that’s the tough part. I think we’ve made some progress in our party in this debate. Nathan Cullen, for example, ended up putting out a set of tax proposals, which are not identical to mine, but that are heading into the same direction. And that take this point: that if you don’t have the guts to take the Tories on on what they’ve done to the tax system, very much contrary to the principles and values of most Canadians, then everything else we talk about is just talk. This point has been accepted to a greater or lesser degree by my colleagues in the race. But it’s an issue that’s not going to go away.

Mind you, the party platform for the most successful federal campaign in NDP history wasn’t nearly so bold—in 2011, New Democrats thought it sufficient to restore the corporate tax rate to 19.5%, end fossil fuel subsidies and target tax havens.

Here, again, is what Mr. Mulcair told the Star during that NDP leadership race.

“Canadians who are going to be making a choice in the next election … have to be reassured that the person who is asking them for their votes and says they want to form a government — that person has to look the Canadian voter in the eye and say … ‘The last thing that is going to be imposed on you as an individual is more taxation unless there is no other way,” he said.

Mulcair said even if the tax bracket was pegged at $1 million, “the only thing the voter will hear ‘is these guys want more taxes.’”

That, again, is a political argument.

The policy argument requires further discussion.

As a percentage of GDP, total tax revenue for all governments peaked in 1998 at 36.7%. As of 2010, it was 31.0%. At the federal level it peaked in 1999 at 17.0%. As of 2010, it was 12.8%. Tax revenue from individuals peaked at 13.8% in 1997. As of 2010, it was 10.8%. At the federal level, taxes of individuals peaked in 1991 at 9.2% and fell to 6.6% in 2010. (All figures courtesy of the OECD.)

Basically, the federal government has been receiving less and less revenue from taxes over the past 15 years. Is that a problem? Only if society is somehow suffering because the government does not have the revenue it needs to do certain things. That, ultimately, is the argument you need to make if you want to raise taxes.

Update 12:07pm. Of course, there might be a perfect cop-out on tax policy waiting to be championed. Last December, the finance committee proposed that a royal commission be convened to study the Income Tax Act.

21. That the federal government explore ways to simplify the Income Tax Act to reduce the complexity and inefficiency of its administration, including through the establishment of a royal commission to undertake a comprehensive review. Additionally, the government should ensure the timely assessment of income tax returns and explore the possibility of permitting consolidated reporting.

22. That the federal government undertake a comprehensive review of the tax system and ensure its fairness as well as neutrality by continuing to close tax loopholes that allow select taxpayers to avoid paying their fair share of tax.

23. That the federal government examine further ways to better equip the Canada Revenue Agency to combat tax evasion while working collaboratively with law enforcement agencies to prosecute tax evaders.

24. That the federal government examine tax provisions in relation to estate and succession planning and their impact on the transfer of family-owned businesses.

25. That the federal government remain vigilant in examining ways to improve Canada’s international tax competitiveness, including through the continued implementation of the recommendations of the Advisory Panel on Canada’s System of International Taxation.

Conservative MP James Rajotte, chair of the finance committee, explained the suggestion to Postmedia.

Conservative MP and committee chairman James Rajotte said a number of chambers of commerce, small business groups and tax watchdogs have complained about the tax system, and the need to streamline and modernize it to help reduce the tax burden on Canadians.

Improving the tax system could spur competitiveness, productivity and create jobs, while also helping determine which tax credits are useful and those that are no longer needed, he said. “They want an overall review of the entire system and to include discussion on everything,” Rajotte said of what the committee heard from various groups. “They argued, I think, convincingly that we need a group to really take a long hard look at the overall (tax) act itself and recommend some changes.”

If the NDP leader is truly a progressive, it’s hard to see his “read my lips” moment as anything more than political pandering. That’s a shame. Especially because taxes are not the prohibitive political taboo they were before the 2008 financial meltdown. A recent Environics survey showed that 64 per cent of Canadians say they would pay a bit more to fund health care, pensions and higher education, while 83 per cent favour a tax hike on the very rich. Meanwhile, U.S. President Barack Obama and Ontario NDP Leader Andrea Horwath both pushed through new taxes last year without suffering any apparent political injuries.

Politicians across the spectrum typically view taxation as a last resort. And that’s probably a good thing. But Mulcair can’t be certain of what, in perpetuity, we will collectively be willing to pay for. By taking possible tax increases off the table, we blinker our vision of what’s possible. The leader of the New Democrats, of all people, should know that.

]]>http://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/have-conservatives-won-the-tax-debate/feed/34C-377, the NDP, the PMO and the future of the Senatehttp://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/c-377-the-ndp-the-pmo-and-the-future-of-the-senate/
http://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/c-377-the-ndp-the-pmo-and-the-future-of-the-senate/#commentsFri, 28 Jun 2013 18:44:43 +0000http://www2.macleans.ca/?p=400732Seriously though, what should we do with the red chamber?

The Broadbent Institute tweets, seemingly in response to this post, while Greg Fingas posits one reading of the situation.

To start with, for all the talk about the single amendment by Hugh Segal “gutting” C-377, the fact is that the bill remains live, well and set to be reconsidered (and potentially pushed through again in its original form) by the House of Commons. Which makes for a stark contrast to how Harper’s trained seals in the Senate trashed previous legislation which had been approved by Canada’s actual elected representatives – voting it down altogether rather than amending it for reconsideration.

If the best case to be made for the Senate’s continued existence is as a check on the out-of-control executive, then, the Senate’s actions under Harper suggest that it’s broadly failing in that role – and the improvements to C-377 make at best a minor dent in the overall impression.

Conservative Senator Hugh Segal—appointed by Paul Martin—talks to John Ivison and sounds a bit like Brent Rathgeber in explaining how a government is best served.

Mr. Segal said the notion that senators used the amendment as a means of sending a message to the PMO was reading too much into it. “I didn’t get any sense of that.” He disputed the suggestion by some Conservative caucus members that the senators were being disloyal by sending the bill back to the House. “Most of us consider ourselves loyal Conservatives. Sometimes the most loyal thing you can do is protect the Prime Minister from bad legislation,” he said.

Conservative Senator Richard Neufeld—appointed by Stephen Harper—explains how he understands his role.

“I appreciate that he appointed me, but the Senate has a job to do and that job is to review legislation, and if there are things of concern to the Senate, we are to bring it to the government’s attention,” Neufeld told The Vancouver Sun. “I’m just doing the job I was appointed to do. I wasn’t appointed just to rubber-stamp everything. I don’t believe that.”

That said, Senator Neufeld says that if the House of Commons returns the bill to the Senate without the amendments, he would feel obligated at that point to defer to the elected chamber.

Though it’s heartening to see independent thought and legislative rigour, I still basically think we could do without a Senate and that an elected Senate might create more problems than it solves. Is there some kind of way an appointed Senate could be unobjectionable? Is there a compromise here? There is the House of Lords model. If we were starting entirely from scratch, I can imagine something like two or three senators from each province and one from each territory, nominated by an independent advisory body, with the power to review legislation passed by the House of Commons and study issues of public policy. Would they be able to initiate their own legislation? Would this Senate’s agreement be required to pass legislation? Would anyone want to serve on this Senate? It would be lovely if it would be as small and as non-partisan and as limited in power as possible. The sober second thought without any of the other characteristics that make the Senate so problematic in a modern democracy.

I can almost see the sense in something like that. But then, I think I’d still generally prefer that the goal be greater independence for MPs, greater power and responsibility for House committees and, with an empowered House of Commons, an end to the Senate.

Now, the resolution didn’t pass. But that wasn’t a matter of it lacking support on the convention floor: instead, after one strong speech favouring the resolution, Libby Davies moved that it be referred to federal council with instructions that it return a formal policy later this year. And that motion, combined with the obvious support of the convention for the cause of ensuring that sex workers are recognized as citizens rather than stigmatized, looks to ensure that the NDP will present an unprecedentedly inclusive policy in the years to come.

WHEREAS seasonal industries are a vibrant and essential part of Canadian identity and economy;

WHEREAS new categories of EI claimants and related definitions of suitable employment will depress overall wages, harm the economy of both rural and urban Canadian communities;

BE IT RESOLVED THAT the Conservative government must hire sufficient staff to properly administer Service Canada programs and dramatically reducing wait times;

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT the government improve the Working While on Claim pilot project so that it does not create disincentives for EI recipients to work while receiving claims;

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT the NDP calls on the government to reverse devastating changes it has made to Employment Insurance which restrict access and benefits, depress wages, push vulnerable Canadians into poverty and download costs to the provinces;

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT the NDP calls on the government to reinstate the Extra Five Weeks pilot project to avoid the impending “black hole” of financial insecurity facing workers in seasonal industries and the regional economies they support;

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED That the NDP call on the Harper Government to repeal this regulation and restore access to these secondary benefits for all foreign workers;

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED That an NDP Government would repeal the residency requirement and allow full universal access to EI benefits to all those who contribute into the system;

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED That an NDP government would restore a just and universal EI program that ensures that all those contributing have fair and equal access to all the benefits;

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the government of Canada restore and improve compassionate and parental leave benefits for seasonal and temporary off shore workers; and

AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the “Cheap labor” policy of this current government be discontinued with a step to ensure that seasonal and temporary foreign workers receive the same rights benefits and responsibilities as all Canadian workers including and not restricted to a path to citizenship.

3-61-13 Resolution on Social HousingSubmitted by the Quebec Section

BE IT RESOLVED, that the following clause be added to section 3.5 of the policy book.

New Democrats believe in implementing a national strategy to ensure secure, adequate, accessible and affordable housing for Canadians in partnership with provinces, municipalities, Aboriginal communities, non-profit and private sector housing providers and civil society organizations, including those that represent groups in need of adequate housing.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the NDP continue to remind Canadians that housing is fundamental right for all, and undertake to protect this right and enshrine it as a justiciable right under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the NDP call on the federal government to increase investment in social housing, and additionally to maintain and increase funding for the Homelessness Partnering Strategy (HPS).

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that a registry of the social housing units available in Canada be created, and a mechanism for controlling transactions on social housing units funded by the CMHC be instituted.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that an NDP government would adopt a law requiring that the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation (CMHC) work in conjunction with other involved stakeholders to develop a national housing strategy.

3-36-13 Resolution on the Renewal of the Health Accords for 2014Submitted by Saint-Hubert-Saint-Bruno

WHEREAS the Health Accords aimed at enabling important reforms of the healthcare system included in the Romanow Report that were struck in 2003 and 2004 will end in 2014;

BE IT RESOLVED THAT the New Democratic Party denounces the Conservative government’s unilateral decision to reduce health transfers to the provinces and territories, increasing their tax burden and stunting opportunities for collaboration and reform of the system;

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT the New Democratic Party continue to support a universal, accessible, high quality public healthcare system;

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT the New Democrats continue to demand that the federal government enter into talks with the provinces and territories to renew health agreements; and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT the New Democratic Party demand that the next health accords include important reforms necessary for better access to prescription drugs, home care and long term care, health professionals including family doctors, as well as important measures to help Canadians live healthy lives.

3-04-13 Resolution on Ending Sexual Harassment in the RCMPSubmitted by Alfred-Pellan

WHEREAS employees and formers employees of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police have brought to light serious allegations of sexual harassment within the RCMP;

WHEREAS the allegations of sexual harassment in the Royal Canadian Mounted Police undermines public confidence in the national police force; and

BE IT RESOLVED THAT the New Democratic Party of Canada continues to urge the Government of Canada to take a leadership role in ending the culture of sexual harassment in the RCMP by identifying and addressing the underlying systemic causes of gender inequality in the RCMP; and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT the New Democratic Party of Canada urge the Government of Canada to collect specific data on the occurrences of sexual harassment in federally regulated workplaces and report these findings to Parliament.

3-05-13 Resolution on Safe FoodSubmitted by BlackstrapWHEREAS concerns about food safety are growing across Canada.

WHEREAS numerous Canadian polls show consumers are concerned about food safety and food handling methods.

WHEREAS the policies and the rules are not always enforced.

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the NDP Opposition ensure that the federal government maintain Canadian food policies and inspection standards at the highest possible level and that policies for food safety, inspection and financial and human resources be reviewed regularly.

4-01-13 Omnibus 1 – VeteransAs Compiled by the Resolutions CommitteeSubmitted by Sackville-Eastern Shore, London—Fanshawe, London West

Part 1 – Veterans’ CareBE IT RESOLVED that the following clauses be amended to Section 4.6 of the policy book by adding the following:

New Democrats believe in:

T. Improving, reviewing, and updating the New Veterans Charter including the lump-sum payment for injured veterans.

U. Applying the principle of One Veteran, One Standard to all federal government programs and services for veterans. Eliminate the current program approach that unfairly establishes “classes” of veterans and family members and offers benefits based on where or when the veteran served and the type of service.

Part 2 – Fairness for CF and RCMP veterans and their families

BE IT RESOLVED that the following clauses be amended to Section 4.6 of the policy book by adding the following:

V. Responding to the concerns of veterans exposed to nuclear weapon trials and those who assisted in the Chalk River clean-up, known as Canada’s “Atomic Veterans”.

W. Respond to concerns about unequal standards of care for injured reservists.

Part 3 – Support for CF and RCMP Veterans and their families

BE IT RESOLVED that the following clauses be amended to Section 4.6 of the policy book by adding the following:

X. Better support for those suffering from Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) or Operational Stress Injuries (OSI) for currently serving CF and RCMP members, veterans, and their families.

Y. Review outstanding grievances of CF and RCMP veterans who have been exposed to occupational hazards like asbestos, depleted uranium, defoliant spraying, and others, to see where departmental benefits and services can be applied. No veteran should fall through the cracks.

Z. Support research on unique challenges and health needs of military and RCMP veterans and their families and develop strategies to meet their health needs.

Part 4 – Replacement of Policy on Economic Security for CF and RCMP Veterans

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that Section 4.6 of the policy book be deleted:

i. Ensuring economic security for Canadian Forces veterans and families, including all spouses, by extending the Veterans Independence Program and enhancing survivors’ pensions.and replaced by:

i. Ensuring economic security for Canadian Forces and RCMP veterans and their families by extending the Veterans Independence Program, enhancing survivors’ pensions, and supporting homeless or at risk veterans.

Part 5 – Replacement of Policy on Service Income Security Insurance Plan (SISIP)

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that Section 4.6. in the policy book be deleted:

k. Ending the unjust cuts to the Service Income Security Insurance Plan for medically released members of the Canadian Forces and former RCMP members and replaced by:

k. Ending the unjust offset of Veterans Affairs Canada (VAC) disability pensions for medically released members of the RCMP, similar to the end of the unjust offset of Service Income Security Insurance Plan (SISIP) that affected injured Canadian Forces veterans.

Part 6 – Replacement of Policy on Veterans Transition into Civilian Life

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that Section 4.6 of the policy book be deleted:

l. Supporting initiatives to help veterans transition into the civilian workforce, such as “Helmets-toHardhats” program to help veterans transition to construction and shipbuilding trades and replaced by:

l. Supporting initiatives to help veterans transition into the civilian workforce including programs that help veterans transition to construction and shipbuilding trades.

Part 7 – Replacement of Policy on Veterans Review and Appeal Board (VRAB)

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that Section 4.6 of the policy book be deleted

S. Eliminating the Veterans Review and Appeal Board and/or reforming the Board by appointing its members from the military, RCMP, and medical personnel, in order to ensure that veterans’ appeals are fairly reviewed by their peersand replaced by:

S. Replacing the Veterans Review and Appeal Board with a medical evidence-based peer reviewed process for disability benefit applications in consultation with veterans and veterans’ organizations.

Part 8 – Recognition of Aboriginal Veterans

BE IT RESOLVED that the following clauses be amended to Section 6.4 of the policy book by adding the following:

New Democrats believe in:

j. Enhance recognition of the contribution of Aboriginal veterans.

Part 9 – Apology to Gay and Lesbian Veterans

BE IT RESOLVED that the following clauses be amended to Section 6.2 of the policy book by adding the following:

New Democrats believe in:

i) Respond to the concerns of gay and lesbian veterans who were forced out the military with an eye to removing the “dishounourable discharge” from their records.

Part 10 – Enhancement of Veterans’ Rights

BE IT RESOLVED that the following clauses be amended to Section 6.5 of the policy book by adding the following:

New Democrats believe in:

(d) Enhancement of Veterans rights so that principles of fair treatment will guide legislation, programs, and services that provide on-going support of CF and RCMP veterans and their families

(e) Ensuring veterans programs and services are kept current, quickly respond to identified gaps in veterans’ care, and continually update programs to ensure needs of veterans and their families are met.

(f) Expanding the role of Veterans Ombudsman to provide independent analysis and reports to Parliament.

(g) Adopt an Identity Card for CF and RCMP veterans and their families to better facilitate contact and communication with veterans and create efficiencies in the delivery of programs.

Part 11 – Greater Recognition of Women Veterans

BE IT RESOLVED that the following clauses be amended to Section 6.1 of the policy book by adding the following:

New Democrats believe in:

k) Greater recognition of the significant contributions of women while serving in Canada’ military or RCMP whether they served during war, here at home, or on peacekeeping missions and that measures are in place to continually safeguard equality of all serving members.

Part 12 – Veterans

BE IT RESOLVED THAT the following clauses be added to Section 4.6 in the policy book, with the first clause replacing clause “s” and all subsequent clauses being alphabetized accordingly.

New Democrats believe in:

• Replacing the Veterans Review and Appeal Board with a medical evidence-based peer reviewed process for disability benefit applications in consultation with veterans and veterans’ organizations.

• Improving, reviewing, and updating the New Veterans Charter including the lump-sum payment for injured veterans.

• Applying the principle of One Veteran, One Standard to all federal government programs and services for veterans. Eliminate the current program approach that unfairly establishes “classes” of veterans and family members and offers benefits based on where or when the veteran served and the type of service.

• Ending the unjust offset of long-term disability pension benefits for medically released members of the RCMP. (Disability pension payments from Veterans Affairs are offset when members receive long-term disability benefits through the Great West Life Assurance Company Group Policy for disabilities or injuries that occurred while on duty).

• Better compensation, recognition, and call for public inquiry for veterans exposed to nuclear weapon trails and those who assisted in the Chalk River clean-up, known as Canada’s “Atomic Veterans”.

• Better support for those suffering from Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) or Operational Stress Injuries (OSI) for currently serving CF and RCMP members and veterans.

• Expanding the role of Veterans Ombudsman to provide independent analysis and reports to Parliament.

• Ensuring veterans programs and services are kept current, quickly respond to identified gaps in veterans’ care, and continually update programs to ensure needs of veterans and their families are met.

WHEREAS Jaswant Singh Khalra’s investigation of thousands of cases of missing, murdered and disappeared Sikhs in the Punjab earned him recognition from Amnesty International as a defender of human rights;

WHEREAS Jaswant Singh Khalra visited Canada and presented his findings to Canadians and Members of Parliament immediately before his forced disappearance in 1995;

BE IT RESOLVED THAT New Democrats recognize Jaswant Singh Khalra as an important defender of human rights and in his memory, recommit to the pursuit of justice and transparency characterized by our shared values of truth, justice and respect of human rights

4-05-13 Resolution on International TradeSubmitted by Submitted by: Kitchener Waterloo, Davenport, South Shore-St. Margaret’s, CEP (the Communications, Energy and Paperworkers Union), New Westminster-Coquitlam

WHEREAS the people of Canada’s ability to regulate and support local economic development has been undermined numerous times under World Trade Organization tribunals and NAFTA investor-state arbitration regimes

BE IT RESOLVED that the following clauses be added to Section 4.5 of the policy book:

“g. preserving the rights of municipal governments and provincial entities such as Hydro Quebec and Manitoba Hydro to include local content and other local economic development requirements as part of their procurement policy

h. not negotiating investor-state dispute resolutions mechanisms into trade agreements, consistent with the policy of the Labour government and party of Australia.”

BE IT RESOLVED THAT the following clause be added to Section 4.3 of the policy book:

i. Working with foreign embassies of sending countries to ensure temporary foreign workers coming to Canada are informed of their rights; working with the provinces to institute a licensing system for foreign recruiters (as is done in Manitoba) and a registration system for employers of temporary foreign workers; and providing access to federal hearings for temporary foreign workers who face deportation.

WHEREAS the NDP has consistently called on the Government of Canada to live up to its responsibilities towards all First Nations, Métis, and Inuit, and to make treaties, as well as the settlement and implementation of comprehensive land claims a priority;

WHEREAS, this Conservative government has not respected its obligations under Section 35 of the Constitution to consult Aboriginal peoples when contemplating actions that may negatively impact on their rights, but instead has chosen to use a confrontational approach; and

WHEREAS this disrespectful approach of the Conservatives extends to their refusal to even negotiate in good faith the outstanding land claims in Labrador, which has led members of the NunatuKavut Community to resort to hunger strikes and civil disobedience, just to be heard;

BE IT RESOLVED THAT the New Democratic Party condemns the Conservative government’s confrontational approach, and demands that it immediately begin good faith negotiations with NunatuKavut Community Council on their comprehensive land claims; and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT the New Democratic Party reaffirms its commitment to a nation-to-nation dialogue with all Aboriginal peoples, be they First Nations, Métis or Inuit.

WHEREAS labour-sponsored venture capital companies, like the Fonds de solidarité FTQ, Fondaction, and GrowthWorks Capital, are important drivers for economic development, particularly for the start-up of small businesses, which create and maintain quality jobs here in Canada;

WHEREAS labour-sponsored funds are important sources of venture capital, a sector of the Canadian economy which, even adjusted for the size of our economy, was up to twenty times lower than in the United States;

WHEREAS according to Deloitte, the lack of risk capital restricts innovation across the country;

WHEREAS many investors planned their retirement based on the return they could obtain from investments and tax credit they get from contributing to a labour-sponsored venture capital fund.

WHEREAS the Conservative government claims it wants to encourage Canadians to save money for the retirement;

BE IT RESOLVED THAT the NDP opposes the Conservative government’s ideological decision in Budget 2013 to eliminate the labour-sponsored venture capital tax credit for funds like the Fonds de solidarité FTQ, Fondactions, and GrowthWorksCapital, companies that serves as savings vehicles for many Canadians planning their retirement; that provide funding to help small business start-ups and encourage innovation, which is largely lacking in Canada; and that help create and safeguard jobs across the country, particularly in the rural areas.

WHEREAS Canada is the only country in the world to pull out of the United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification, despite the growing crisis of climate change and the human toll taken by drought in the world’s poorest regions;

WHEREAS this convention is the world’s only binding instrument addressing desertification and drought;

WHEREAS Canada’s annual contribution is actually less than the $350,461 spent by Senator Pamela Wallin on travel since September 2010;

WHEREAS more than half of all deaths in natural disasters worldwide are related to drought, which also has severe impacts in the Canadian prairies; and

WHEREAS this decision follows on the heels of other Conservative moves to ignore the impacts of climate change, including muzzling government scientists, pulling out of the Kyoto agreement, shutting down the National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy, and closing the world-leading Experimental Lakes Area;

BE IT RESOLVED THAT New Democrats condemn the Conservative decision to pull out of the United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification and call for its immediate reversal;

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT New Democrats pledge to continue to work to address the crisis of climate change at home and abroad, including through participation in agreements and programs to address the impacts of desertification.

WHEREAS Conservatives have completely mismanaged the Temporary Foreign Workers Program (TFW) – and Canadians are paying the price;

WHEREAS lax Conservative oversight of the TFW program has led to misuse of the program, outsourcing of jobs to temporary foreign workers, and abuses of workers at other work sites;

WHEREAS Conservatives have feigned outrage hoping Canadians forget that they created the loopholes that allow companies to abuse the Temporary Foreign Worker Program and displace Canadian workers; and

WHEREAS Canadians are demanding immediate action because they are tired of empty promises and unaccountable reviews;

BE IT RESOLVED THAT New Democrats demand the closing of loopholes in the Temporary Foreign Worker Program that allows employers to fire Canadian workers and replace them with temporary foreign workers;

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT New Democrats condemn the Conservative provision allowing Temporary Foreign Workers to be paid 15% less than Canadian workers;

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT New Democrats call for increased monitoring of compliance including working with the provinces to ensure that the rights of temporary foreign workers are protected and that exploitation of workers does not occur; and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT New Democrats demand a clear timeline for independent review of the Temporary Foreign Worker Program and its impact on Canadian employment and labour standards.

E-5 Emergency resolution on the on-going crisis in First Nations CommunitiesSubmitted by : Aboriginal Commission

WHEREAS the continuing incation of the Conservative government has pushed the arleady heightened sense of frustration felt by First Nations expressed through the Idle No More grassroots movement to a tipping point :

WHEREAS in a country like ours, no one should have to risk their health to be heard by this Government; and

WHEREA the path that this Conservative government has choses unnecessarily escalates tension among First Nations and sets the stage for future confrontations;

BE IT RESOLVED that the New Democratic Party demands the immediate fulfillment of commitments made by the Government of Canada at both the January 24, 2012 and January 11, 2013 meetings; and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT a New Democrat government would renew the Crown-First Nations relationship on a respectful nation-to-nation basis.

E-6 Emergency resolution regarding the newly released information on tax havensSubmitted by : various members

WHEREAS the Canadian government is losing billions of dollars in revenue as a result of illegal tax evasion and unethical tax avoidance using overseas tax havens;

WHEREAS this loss of revenue through the use of tax havens places an additional tax burden on the millions of Canadians who pay their fair share of taxes;

WHEREAS this Conservative government has announced plans to cut hundreds of millions of dollars for assessment and compliance at the Canada Revenue Agency that will hinder our ability to pursue tax cheats; and

WHEREAS a recent leak of financial data, containing information on hundreds of Canadians using tax havens, has highlighted the inadequacy of existing measures to combat tax evasion;

BE IT RESOLVED THAT the New Democratic Party of Canada call on the federal government to:

a) provide the Canada Revenue Agency with the resources necessary to successfully meet its mandate in serving Canadians and cracking down on tax cheats;

b) finally estimate the “tax gap” – the total loss of revenue caused by the inappropriate use of tax havens – or to provide the necessary information for this calculation to the Parliamentary Budget Officer; and

]]>Before the Liberals confirm Justin Trudeau’s leadership announce the name of their new leader in Ottawa this weekend, the New Democrats will hold their biennial policy convention in Montreal.

Postmedia has an overview of the 432 policy resolutions that have been submitted—the full list is here. Greg Fingas offers a New Democrat’s perspective.

For those who want to see concerted action against tax havens and unbridled financial speculation (including a Robin Hood tax), an increased focus on social and community ownership and employment rather than capital interests, and a move away from corporate self-regulation, the NDP’s economic resolutions address all of those issues.

For those interested in social issues typically ignored by Canada’s other political parties such as focusing on intergenerational fairness, basing policy on the social determinants of health, expanding and strengthening of the Canada Health Act, and eliminating mandatory minimum sentences, those subjects will also be up for discussion within the social investment panel. And for those wanting a trade policy which doesn’t handcuff Canadian governments, a system to protect the rights of temporary foreign workers or an explicit focus on diplomatic measures over military action, the panel on Canada’s place in the world will address all of those possibilities.

]]>http://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/ndp-policy-party/feed/28Cooperative math is complicatedhttp://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/cooperative-math-is-complicated/
http://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/cooperative-math-is-complicated/#commentsMon, 11 Mar 2013 16:27:15 +0000http://www2.macleans.ca/?p=359164Uniting the left is still harder than it sounds

]]>Paul Adams wonders what it would take for the New Democrats and Liberals to consider a merger. Greg Fingas notes a wrinkle in Joyce Murray’s cooperation proposal: Ms. Murray wants to combine the 2008 and 2011 election results for the purposes of figuring out where to cooperate, in part so that an “anomaly” like the NDP’s result in Quebec in 2011 can be accounted for.

Now, one of the main criticisms of strategic voting schemes has been their inevitable reliance on re-fighting the last war – with results ranging from ineffective to downright counterproductive. But Murray apparently isn’t satisfied with even that well-established level of failure. Instead, she’s going a step further into the past, seeking to incorporate yet another layer of past (and outdated) data from the 2008 election in order to try to make her proposal palatable among supporters who apparently want to live in denial that the most recent federal election actually happened.

Moreover, she’s explicitly declaring that a plan nominally aimed at expanding the number of progressive seats in Parliament will operate on the assumption that the largest actual grouping of such seats is an irrelevant “anomaly”. (Not that the NDP’s success in winning Quebec ridings from the Cons and Bloc would be subject to her cooperation plan in the first place – as in another familiar failing of strategic voting schemes, Murray doesn’t seem to recognize that a viable coalition needs to hold and build on the seats it actually holds rather than simply assuming the rest of the election will proceed exactly like the previous one.)

Of course, there may be other strategic thoughts behind the introduction of Scott’s bill. Maybe the hope is to lead the Libs’ leadership candidates even further down the same path to allow Mulcair to frame them as remaining out of touch (in which case, mission accomplished). Or perhaps the intention is to present a single bill now as a marker to point to when the subject is raised later, while planning to turn attention back to more substantive issues at the first available opportunity.

Even if so, I’d still have some timing questions as to why that’s being done right this minute, rather than after NDP members have had a chance to shape the party’s direction under Mulcair. But more importantly, while the NDP certainly needs to think about how to position itself compared to its competitors, it also needs to keep its own priorities in order – meaning that the true test for Mulcair may be whether he keeps the NDP’s focus on the issues he knows to be more important.

]]>http://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/the-unity-bill-gambit/feed/27Do we want the Senate defeating bills passed by the House?http://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/do-we-want-the-senate-defeating-bills-passed-by-the-house/
http://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/do-we-want-the-senate-defeating-bills-passed-by-the-house/#commentsFri, 09 Nov 2012 21:59:14 +0000http://www2.macleans.ca/?p=313579Greg Fingas considers the ramifications of the Senate (potentially) defeating the sports betting bill.It’s been glaringly obvious to those of us paying attention that the Cons have set up …

It’s beenglaringlyobvious to those of us paying attention that the Cons have set up plenty of means to keep dictating the terms of Canadian politics from beyond the political grave – with the most obvious being their continued stacking of the Senate which will put at least a formal roadblock in the way of any future government for many years to come.

As a result, any opposition party with an ounce of foresight would know better than to send the message that unelected Senators should consider themselves free to overrule elected Members of Parliament – particularly when a bill has been passed unanimously among the representatives chosen by Canadian voters.

Depending on the eventual fate of Senate reform, it could take two consecutive election victories by either the New Democrats or Liberals to replace the Conservative majority in the Senate. And even—especially?—if the Senate moves toward some kind of elected body, a future showdown between it and a sitting government should be up for consideration now. (The NDP seems already, if quietly, to be thinking about this.)

]]>http://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/do-we-want-the-senate-defeating-bills-passed-by-the-house/feed/39Attacking the attackshttp://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/attacking-the-attacks/
http://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/attacking-the-attacks/#commentsWed, 10 Oct 2012 17:38:41 +0000http://www2.macleans.ca/?p=301896Greg Fingas considers the NDP’s new web ad.Well, the good news is that the NDP has avoided the trap which regularly tripped up the Libs. Rather than portraying the …

Well, the good news is that the NDP has avoided the trap which regularly tripped up the Libs. Rather than portraying the Cons’ dishonesty as an affront to the official opposition (which would have been rather easy to do given that the columns cited refer to lies about the NDP in the first place), the new ad highlights the relationship between the Cons and the public. So viewers with concerns about the Cons should react relatively similarly regardless of their relationship to any opposition party.

But there looks to be ample room for improvement in the execution, as the ad is both text-heavy (featuring only a single photo of Stephen Harper at the beginning), and based entirely on media opinions rather than direct quotes. Which means that it doesn’t build much of a connection between the Cons’ contempt and any actual Cons – or even any of their talking points.

]]>http://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/attacking-the-attacks/feed/18The Lemonade Stand testhttp://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/the-lemonade-stand-test/
http://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/the-lemonade-stand-test/#commentsMon, 24 Sep 2012 19:42:44 +0000http://www2.macleans.ca/?p=296445As noted, the “revenue” part of the government’s new argument against cap-and-trade is a red herring. But Greg Fingas is willing to respond to it anyway.Now, keep in mind …

]]>As noted, the “revenue” part of the government’s new argument against cap-and-trade is a red herring. But Greg Fingas is willing to respond to it anyway.

Now, keep in mind that this is a minister within the same government which is shutting down and selling off vital public services – depriving countless Canadians of life, limb or livelihood in the process – in the name of deficit reduction. Or, put another way, in the name of closing a gap between expenses and revenue. One might then think that any even faintly competent administrator would consider more revenue to be a plus. And that goes doubly if the increased revenue is paired with a more efficient means of reaching another stated policy goal.

But according to Kent, the Cons’ overriding principle in making government decisions is the glibertarian theory that “revenue = bad”. Which would thoroughly disqualify his party from holding office based on the elementary test of being competent to run a lemonade stand … Moreover, by any reasonable comparison of climate change policies, the Cons would then be choosing to impose higher compliance costs on industry (and ultimately consumers) for the sole purpose of avoiding the “evil” of revenue – even when that revenue would serve to reduce exactly the deficit they claim to be fighting.

]]>http://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/the-lemonade-stand-test/feed/6Responding to the farcehttp://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/responding-to-the-farce/
http://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/responding-to-the-farce/#commentsMon, 17 Sep 2012 16:47:35 +0000http://www2.macleans.ca/?p=294492Greg Fingas considers a response to the Conservatives’ carbon tax farce.Yes, Harper has pretended to agree with greenhouse gas emission regulation for the purpose of deflecting from the environment …

Yes, Harper has pretended to agree with greenhouse gas emission regulation for the purpose of deflecting from the environment as an election issue. But he’s only been willing to feign support for whatever policy seems furthest from being implemented – with the apparent goal of making sure that no single form of regulation gains enough momentum to be seen as an inescapable consensus.

Moreover, in government Harper has consistently refused to implement any policy which actually results in the oil sector (rather than the general public) taking responsibility for the damage unregulated greenhouse gas emissions can do to Canada’s environment and the global climate. And the fact that a majority Con government is managing to be even more reckless than the previous minority versions only drives that point home.

Here, again, are the reasons why the current Conservative position is farcical.

… they nicely tie together a few easily-digestible and repeated themes (deficits, cuts, economic uncertainty) as affecting viewers directly – serving to thoroughly undercut the “trust us in uncertain times” theme that won the Cons’ majority in 2011, while also setting up a contrast with the NDP’s track record as a party which balances budgets while valuing social benefits.

Of course, it matters how many people will actually see whatever message the NDP is hoping to convey. As yet, the party isn’t offering any details. “We are not prepared to share the specifics of our advertising strategy, however our objective is to reach out to a maximum of Canadians,” party president Chantal Vallerand told me in an email this week. “We are quite pleased with the initial reaction we are getting from our initial roll out.”

As of this writing, the English version of the NDP’s new ads has 61,095 views on YouTube.

We elect a Parliament, not a government; we vote for our local MP, not the Prime Minister. Political parties do not “win” elections, successful local candidates do, and the party with the most of them gets the first chance to form the government. In an election, as in Parliament, the individual matters more than the aggregate, the vote tally as much as the winner, and the result no less than the outcome. The same logic—that every vote matters—explains why we choose our leaders in elections in the first place; if efficiency were all-important, we would use opinion polls, instead.

This is a principled argument. Elections Canada offers a practical one. And perhaps, as Mr. Mayrand argues, the perfect should not become the enemy of the good; a simple bureaucratic snafu may not be enough to upend an election, unless the outcome hangs in the balance. But if the Supreme Court accepts his argument, it will be conceding not just that Canada’s electoral system is imperfect, but also that our commitment to our own democracy is more limited than we might have hoped. Canadians should expect only as much democracy as we can afford.

]]>http://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/the-meaning-of-etobicoke-centre/feed/4A fight about policy?http://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/a-fight-about-policy/
http://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/a-fight-about-policy/#commentsThu, 05 Jul 2012 15:48:26 +0000http://www2.macleans.ca/?p=272278Greg Fingas considers the Conservative attack ad and finds reason for New Democrats to be optimistic.Casual political observers didn’t have much frame of reference to determine whether Dion was …

Casual political observers didn’t have much frame of reference to determine whether Dion was “not a leader” or whether Ignatieff was “just visiting” precisely because those talking points were utterly meaningless. And that meant there wasn’t much either could do to shed the initial label imprinted on them by the Cons.

But by putting the focus on Mulcair’s economic theories, the Cons are opening the door for him to talk about why the NDP’s plans make sense – which looks to be well within his comfort zone. And given that the public has been in broad agreement with the NDP in general as well as the veryideas the Cons are trying to paint as extreme, that may mean that even the best-case scenario includes plenty of downside for the Cons.

Greg also notes the risk of declaring yourself the “safe” option.

For the sake of comparison, here are some of the first ads run against Stephane Dion and Michael Ignatieff.

]]>http://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/a-fight-about-policy/feed/1‘Members of the Conservative government will be disrupted from this point on’http://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/members-of-the-conservative-government-will-be-disrupted-from-this-point-on/
http://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/members-of-the-conservative-government-will-be-disrupted-from-this-point-on/#commentsTue, 26 Jun 2012 16:01:11 +0000http://www2.macleans.ca/?p=270691On Friday, Joe Oliver was interrupted during an announcement by a doctor and medical student protesting government cuts to refugee health care.

More on the concerns of doctors here. Greg Fingas considers the ethics of disrupting a government announcement.

There’s been plenty of debate about the protest which caused Joe Oliver to move a funding announcement. But I’d think there’s a more fundamental question we should ask about the event, particularly when the indignant response of the event host was to the effect that “this is an important announcement!”.

To wit: how exactly is it important for the Cons to be able to dictate that a public venue serve as a resistance-free backdrop for their PR efforts?

]]>http://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/members-of-the-conservative-government-will-be-disrupted-from-this-point-on/feed/11The NDP and Albertahttp://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/the-ndp-and-alberta/
http://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/the-ndp-and-alberta/#commentsFri, 20 Apr 2012 19:18:07 +0000http://www2.macleans.ca/?p=253955Greg Fingas puts some hope in Linda Duncan’s shadow cabinet assignment.Second, the choice of Linda Duncan as critic for Public Works and Government Services may make for a neat …

Second, the choice of Linda Duncan as critic for Public Works and Government Services may make for a neat bit of strategy. A strong Alberta figure charged with criticizing patronage, waste and mismanagement should serve to raise serious questions among the Cons’ base- and that may not only help to shake loose populist votes on the prairies, but also put at least somewhat of a dent in the Cons’ fund-raising and activist networks.

The NDP’s ability to win seats in Saskatchewan was a preoccupation of Thomas Mulcair during the party’s leadership race. But what about Alberta?

The New Democrats currently hold just Ms. Duncan’s seat in the province, but over the last seven elections the party’s share of the popular vote in Alberta has gone from 4.1% to 5.7% to 5.4% to 9.5% to 11.6% to 12.7% to 16.8%. It hasn’t been that high since 1988 when the NDP took 17.4% of the vote in Alberta. (At that time, the NDP was the official opposition in the provincial legislature.) Ms. Duncan’s victory over Rahim Jaffer in 2008 was supposed to have been a fluke, but she increased both her vote and her margin of victory in 2011.

The provincial party is only polling at 11% in the current Alberta election, but the math is complicated and presuming the NDP wins a smattering of seats, it’s not inconceivable that they could end up being relevant players in a minority parliament.

]]>Greg Fingas catches the apparent arrival of nuance to Thomas Mulcair’s views on coalition government. Last month, a possible coalition with Liberals was categorically out of the question. Yesterday, in an interview with CTV’s Question Period, Mr. Mulcair committed only to fielding 338 candidates and running to form a majority government. “Anything beyond that,” he said, “is pure speculation.”

Until Mr. Mulcair is asked again directly about his position and whether it has changed, it is likely too early to say to what degree his mind remains open to the possibility of a coalition, but Greg considers the ramifications.

In effect, merely in recognizing that any talk of a post-election coalition will depend on the circumstances at the time, Mulcair is taking a more cooperative line than the leaders of the Official Opposition in the previous two elections. Which means that the NDP will preserve at least some of its hard-earned reputation as the party most willing to work pragmatically toward progressive goals.

Mind you, the statement that we’ll need to see what happens doesn’t serve as quite the strong defence of cooperation that I’d most like to see. But it does open the door for a neat contrast against Libs past and present – allowing Mulcair to say he’ll consider working with the Libs and others toward common goals, while highlighting just what those goals are for the NDP. And if the Cons decide to follow up with another bizarre anti-cooperation crusade that pushes Mulcair to make stronger statements about the importance of working together rather than being as insular and narrowly-focused as Harper and company, then the result for the NDP figures to be all the better.

]]>http://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/to-2015-and-beyond/feed/1Show me what you gothttp://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/show-me-what-you-got/
http://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/show-me-what-you-got/#respondFri, 23 Mar 2012 17:25:28 +0000http://www2.macleans.ca/?p=247760How much do these leadership showcases matter? Greg Fingas recalls Stephane Dion’s showing at the Liberal convention in 2006.Much of Stephane Dion’s tenure as leader of the Libs was …

]]>How much do these leadership showcases matter? Greg Fingas recalls Stephane Dion’s showing at the Liberal convention in 2006.

Much of Stephane Dion’s tenure as leader of the Libs was defined by a basic inability to handle even relatively basic planning and message coordination when it counted – ranging from his campaign interview false-start, to the late-delivered and poor-quality video that did so much to undermine the 2008 coalition. But less noted is that Libs had an obvious hint as to his difficulties in the area: at the leadership convention where he was elected, Dion had the plug pulled on a convention speech which seemed to bear little relationship to the time allotted…

So while it’ll be worth watching how much the candidates can inspire the crowd on Friday, we should also pay close attention to whether anybody’s campaign shows signs of disorganization on the biggest stage the leadership candidates will face.

]]>http://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/show-me-what-you-got/feed/0Weighing the racehttp://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/weighing-the-race/
http://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/weighing-the-race/#commentsTue, 20 Mar 2012 14:45:47 +0000http://www2.macleans.ca/?p=246769Alice Funke follows the money.Secondly, and on the other hand, it was not in fact the weekly fundraising totals that predicted the 2003 outcome, but the cumulative ones. If …

Secondly, and on the other hand, it was not in fact the weekly fundraising totals that predicted the 2003 outcome, but the cumulative ones. If that’s the better indicator, why might that be? Well, for one thing, because late money is hard to spend well. It’s too late to hire full-time organizers and put them to much effective use signing up members or lining up local endorsements, too late to invest in national mailings, or predictive dialling phone banks, or well-designed database systems, or to organize a full-on get-out-the-vote campaign. It will buy some robocalls and telephone town halls (the first advertise the second, no matter what any candidate says about running a “robocall-free campaign”), and it might cover a quick IVR survey, a bit more travel, and a better floor show at convention.

And Greg Fingas tries to pinpoint what New Democrats should be thinking about.

But that leads to what may be the key question in evaluating the candidates: who, if elected, would best recognize and apply the collective strengths of the leadership candidates, caucus and party at large? And my suspicion is that the answer to that question – viewing the candidates in terms of organizational leadership, rather than either personal profile alone or compromises among camps – should be our guiding principle in deciding which candidate to support.

After the debate, the candidates said they were unsatisfied with Mulcair’s answers. Mulcair hadn’t been “clear” enough Topp said, while Dewar stated the Quebec MP hadn’t provided “enough detail.” “These aren’t just about superficial language or local issues, this is about the foundation of who we are,” Ashton said.

Nash, who told reporters she believes she will be on the final ballot with Mulcair on March 24, suggested he was holding a secret agenda. “I think that’s a fundamental question as a leadership candidate that he needs to answer, what direction is he taking the party, and I don’t think we got a clear response,” she said.

I’ve come to the conclusion that Topp is the best of the candidates as matters stand now based on his obvious strengths in policy command and organizational acumen, as well as the progress he’s made in his public presentation.

But equally importantly, even if he’s indeed at the bottom of the second tier for the moment, a candidate who’s written the book on how to make deals under fire looks like the best option to use his voting bloc to secure the best possible compromise outcome at the leadership convention. So if I had to vote today, it would be Topp leading the way.

Mulcair still ranks well ahead of the pack, and indeed is largely rising above the most contentious exchanges as the candidates below jockey for position. But his new “strong, structured opposition” catchphrase rather cries out for explanation – and I wouldn’t be surprised if plenty of NDP members have serious concerns about the prospect of top-down organization and message control if that’s what he has in mind.

I believe that Brian Topp won this debate. I don’t say that lightly; in every other debate thus far I have ranked him several people down from the top. However, for the first time he came off a genuinely relaxed, jovial, and personal. He won most if not all of the minor exchanges with other candidates during Question & Answer period. He provided detailed policies, optimism for himself and the NDP, appropriate criticism of Harper and the other candidates without the pettiness we have seen before, and generally came off looking more like a Prime Minister than I have ever seen from him.

]]>http://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/winnipeg-reaction/feed/1The case for Nathan Cullenhttp://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/the-case-for-nathan-cullen/
http://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/the-case-for-nathan-cullen/#commentsMon, 20 Feb 2012 14:30:23 +0000http://www2.macleans.ca/?p=240908Shortly before this past weekend’s membership deadline, Nathan Cullen won the endorsements of two social media outlets, based primarily on his promise of cooperation with other parties.Youth-led Leadnow.ca boasts …

]]>Shortly before this past weekend’s membership deadline, Nathan Cullen won the endorsements of two social media outlets, based primarily on his promise of cooperation with other parties.

Youth-led Leadnow.ca boasts a membership of 80,000 — roughly the same as the NDP’s membership at the start of the seven-month leadership campaign. Avaaz has more than 13 million members worldwide, 604,547 of them in Canada. “These two groups coming on board is huge for us,” Cullen, a British Columbia MP, said in an interview. “They have networks that go far, far beyond normal party structures. … The sheer number, that’s absolutely staggering.”

All the same, Greg Fingas raises various questions about how Mr. Cullen’s plan for joint nominations would actually work.

]]>http://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/the-case-for-nathan-cullen/feed/6Anybody’s guesshttp://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/anybodys-guess/
http://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/anybodys-guess/#commentsTue, 14 Feb 2012 18:51:45 +0000http://www2.macleans.ca/?p=239777Greg Fingas considers what we now know of the NDP leadership race.Of course, the stories have focused on the candidates’ relative positioning – with Paul Dewar’s camp making a …

Of course, the stories have focused on the candidates’ relative positioning – with Paul Dewar’s camp making a particularly concerted effort to suggest that Brian Topp ranks below Dewar. But the two full poll results released yesterday show remarkably little gap between the second- and fifth-place candidates: both suggest that the fifth-place candidate could vault all the way to second by winning over, say, Niki Ashton’s supporters, while the 31% undecided number in Dewar’s poll signals that there’s plenty of room for small shifts with a massive potential impact on the candidates’ rankings.

And what’s more, both polls also suggest that an alliance among any three of Nash, Dewar, Topp, Cullen and their supporters would result in the beneficiary being on at least even terms with Mulcair for the final ballot.

There was a strong feeling among people following the event that Ottawa MP Paul Dewar was the weakest performer in French. Mr. Dewar is working every day with a tutor, but he had problems expressing his thoughts, especially when he could not rely on his notes. Mr. Dewar frequently used short sentences, took a number of pauses and struggled to improvise when he was questioned by rival candidates.

More from the Star, Sun and Postmedia. Joanna Smith notes one potential flashpoint.

Toronto MP Peggy Nash (Parkdale—High Park) was forced to walk a fine line between defending free and universal health coverage while respecting provincial jurisdiction — always a hot topic in this province — when Ottawa MP Paul Dewar asked her what she would do if the Quebec government wanted to charge hospital user fees. “We hope that we want our health care system to be public, but really it’s a provincial jurisdiction, so it’s the decision of Quebecers,” Nash said.

Dewar later told reporters he was surprised by this response to the question of user fees, for which the NDP went after former Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff during the federal election last year. “We dealt with this question and Jack (Layton) was very strong on it, that we want to have the Canada Health Act enforced for everyone,” Dewar said. “It’s not fair that some people would have to pay user fees and others wouldn’t.”

After the debate, Mr. Topp said that Canada’s tax system is blatantly unfair and that he will continue to encourage the party to move leftward and go after Bay St. millionaires. “I think he is wrong,” Mr. Topp said about Mr. Mulcair’s views. “His answers show we have a bit of a disagreement here about the direction our party should go in.”

]]>http://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/halifax-reaction/feed/1They know what they don’t likehttp://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/they-know-what-they-dont-like/
http://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/they-know-what-they-dont-like/#commentsThu, 08 Dec 2011 13:25:58 +0000http://www2.macleans.ca/?p=228931For its latest report on the state of our democracy, Samara consulted the public.Overall, our research shows that declining political engagement is, at least in part, due to concrete …

]]>For its latest report on the state of our democracy, Samara consulted the public.

Overall, our research shows that declining political engagement is, at least in part, due to concrete experiences with politics. Indeed, participants’ answers belie the notion that the Canadian public is not knowledgeable or sophisticated enough to understand how their political system works. Rather, the people we spoke to are keenly aware of the forces that affect politics.

Of course, there figures to be far more work done in convincing voters who have decided the political process is futile. But Samara’s conversations suggest that there’s a massive potential constituency for anybody who can successfully convince doubtful voters that it’s possible for politics to result in real positive results for ordinary people (as a matter of substance rather than sloganeering). And that in turn should offer hope for the engaged group that its work can lead to significant results if it helps to make that case.

One way to look at these findings is to say that all parts of the system, from political par-ties to politicians to governments, need to become more service-oriented. No doubt that would help. We need to feel as if the public service works for us, that our MPs and MLAs are representing our views, not just answering to their party leaders.

But I wonder whether this isn’t also a question of unreasonable expectations. Successful democracy can’t be defined as a system that allows everyone to achieve exactly what they want. That is too high a bar. What we can strive for is a system that gives anyone who wants to participate a chance to feel as if their voices matter even if their views don’t prevail.

]]>http://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/they-know-what-they-dont-like/feed/13When taxes aim highhttp://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/when-taxes-aim-high/
http://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/when-taxes-aim-high/#commentsMon, 24 Oct 2011 18:35:33 +0000http://www2.macleans.ca/?p=221342Stephen Gordon questions the effects of taxing the rich.What becomes more problematic is just who will bear the burden of those taxes – or, in the language of public …

What becomes more problematic is just who will bear the burden of those taxes – or, in the language of public finance, what is the incidence of increased income taxes on high earners? The ostensible targets of the UK bonus supertax were high-earning bank employees, and since they bore the statutory incidence of the supertax, they did indeed pay more taxes. But since they were able to obtain increases that left their after-tax incomes untouched, they weren’t left out of pocket by the measure: the economic incidence was passed on to shareholders, other employees and bank customers – in short, everyone except the original target. If the goal of the bonus supertax was to reduce the gap between high earners and the rest of the income distribution, it’s hard to see how it could be considered a success.

Even if we assume that every dime of any personal income tax increase will be passed along to shareholders and employees, that doesn’t negate the fact that more money is indeed being collected in taxes through the personal income tax system than would be gathered through other taxes applicable (whose rates have been slashed in the name of promoting business interest). And so the worst we can say about a high top-level personal income tax is that it’s not clear how much will actually be redistributed from the absolute top end into public coffers, and how much will instead come the not-quite-top end.

Which means that even on Gordon’s account, there’s reason to think a tax targeted toward top-end income earners would indeed both reduce inequality, and provide added funds for social priorities. And if the worst-case scenario is to shine a spotlight on executive capture of wealth which leads to corporate governance being dealt with more seriously, then that’s hardly a result we should want to avoid.

]]>http://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/when-taxes-aim-high/feed/33Raise taxes to reduce inequalityhttp://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/raise-taxes-to-reduce-inequality/
http://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/raise-taxes-to-reduce-inequality/#commentsMon, 17 Oct 2011 13:32:00 +0000http://www2.macleans.ca/?p=220335Mike Moffatt argues we aren’t prepared to do what’s necessary to reduce inequality.The obvious place to start would be to borrow solutions from countries where after-tax income inequality is …

]]>Mike Moffatt argues we aren’t prepared to do what’s necessary to reduce inequality.

The obvious place to start would be to borrow solutions from countries where after-tax income inequality is relatively low. Three countries that consistently score well on income inequality measures are Denmark, Finland and Sweden. These three Nordic countries share very similar tax structures, featuring moderate-to-low marginal corporate tax rates, moderate-to-high income tax rates and very high value added sales tax rates (VATs, similar to Ontario’s HST). The average VAT in these three countries is 25 per cent, a rate nearly twice that of the average Canadian federal GST plus provincial sales tax or HST. A one percentage point increase in the HST alone would raise $5 billion to $6 billion per year for the federal government, so increases by a few percentage points could adequately fund programs designed to reduce inequality. No country on Earth has been able to find a way to fund the kind of social programs and redistribution needed for “reasonable” levels of inequality without VAT rates significantly higher than Ontario’s HST.

Traditional political orthodoxy says that during a U.S. presidential primary or a leadership race in the Canadian context, you spend the internal battle running toward your base and once the general election comes around, you tack toward the political centre.

Well, political orthodoxies don’t apply to Tom Mulcair. Or more accurately (and less snarky), he realizes that if he follows a traditional path in the NDP leadership race – appealing to traditional New Democrat power bases among organized labour, Prairie farmers and other left of centre party activists – he has no chance of winning. So he’s decided to instead run against the people who make up the NDP.

Of course, one could see the issue as simply a divergence of interests between Mulcair and the broader party if the effect of such a message was to help his cause in the leadership race. But the more important problem for Mulcair is that he looks to have opened up about the widest possible pathway for Brian Topp to claim the leadership.

It was one thing for Topp to have the advantage of being the establishment candidate, which to my mind only countered his disadvantage in not yet being an elected MP. But if Topp can position himself as both the choice of the NDP’s operational core assembled by Jack Layton and the defender of left-wing values within the leadership campaign (which a few weeks ago would have seemed highly implausible for a candidate known in large part for his association with Roy Romanow’s government), then it’s hard to see a path to victory for any other candidate that doesn’t involve bringing in tens upon tens of thousands of new members from outside the party.

“The leadership race effectively begins Monday morning, I would say,” Mr. Martin said. “It won’t be a divisive race, it will be a uniting experience and respectful experience,” Mr. Martin said. “That’s the tone Jack has set; he’s raised the bar for civility in political discourse in this country, and the first demonstration is going to be a very interesting but respectful leadership race.”

]]>http://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/back-to-work-3/feed/17Optimism is better than despairhttp://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/optimism-is-better-than-despair/
http://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/optimism-is-better-than-despair/#respondTue, 23 Aug 2011 16:46:01 +0000http://www2.macleans.ca/?p=211349Greg Fingas finds reason for optimism among New Democrats.Most leadership races in established political parties take place at a point when a party is generally on a downward trajectory …

Most leadership races in established political parties take place at a point when a party is generally on a downward trajectory – either after it has fallen from government to opposition or in some other way missed a perceived opportunity to improve its standing, or after it has been in power long enough to face public fatigue even as it tries to renew itself.

In contrast, the NDP will get to choose its next leader from a position of unprecedented strength and hope, thanks to both Layton’s electoral results and his means of reaching them.

The leading example is of course California, whose combination of conflicting citizen initiatives and political gridlock has made it virtually impossible to make reasonable budgetary decisions or carry out any long-term planning. And direct democratic processes shouldn’t serve as the only outlet for citizen involvement between elections. Indeed, both of the above examples could have been avoided if the governments involved had consulted with residents to determine whether their policy choices were even faintly defensible.

But there’s always some risk that a government that believes itself to be four years away from any accountability might push far beyond the limits of reasonable political choice. And some mechanism for citizens to take back our representative authority in case of emergency might work wonders to reduce the danger of overreach in the future.